Washington DC, April 2019 - The House Appropriations Committee is set to take up funding legislation that typically spells out changes to federal workplace policies, including a possible raise. Image: DCStockPhotography/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffOne of the few of the regular spending measures that the House Appropriations Committee has not yet moved—but likely will soon—is the one covering general government matters, which typically is the main vehicle for changes to federal workplace policies including setting the pay raise for the following year.
The House panel almost certainly will oppose President Trump’s proposal to freeze salary rates, with Democratic leaders there having said they favor a 3.6 percent increase in January. That figure however would exceed the 3.1 percent that Trump proposed for the military—a number the Senate Armed Services Committee already has backed—and never in recent years has the federal employee raise exceeded the raise for military personnel.
Writing a federal employee raise of any size into the spending bill would set Congress and the White House on course for the type of standoff that occurred last year. At that time, the administration similarly had proposed to pay no federal employee raise and because a budget had not been enacted by the end of last year, that freeze took effect at the start of this year—only to be later overridden by an average 1.9 percent increase paid retroactively.
The Senate would weigh in later, but it was that chamber—then as now under Republican control—that initially voted last year to provide the 1.9 percent raise that eventually was paid.
The other major focus of the bill, which funds central agencies, will be the potential for a move to block the administration’s request for $50 million to move forward with the planned shift to GSA of OPM’s retirement, insurance and HR services divisions, while moving its policy-making roles to OMB.
Democratic leaders of the House Oversight and Reform Committee earlier had asked the appropriations panel to hold off on providing those requested funds until their panel had a chance to review the administration’s plan in detail. A subcommittee of the oversight panel has since held a hearing at which members of both parties expressed skepticism about the plan and where Democratic members, especially, complained about a lack of detailed information. Witnesses from the OPM inspector general and the GAO said the plan is not well enough developed to assess it.
While the two committees have separate roles, that hearing likely will be the only close examination of the proposed OPM breakup for some time, and there was no sign of a willingness to fund it. Denying the requested funds would put the House position at odds with the administration on still another front.
